Rasmussen Reportsreleased the first polling for the Massachusetts Special Election to fill the U.S. Vacant Senate Seat today. Democrat, Martha Coakley shows a 9 point lead over Brown, with a margin of error of 4.5 and 7% undecided. Rasmussen did not include Libertarian Candidate Kennedy in the polling, rather listed: other candidates, which may have skewed results in Coakley's favor. The biggest factor in this particular poll is the lead Brown has among Independent Voters - based on Rasmussen: Brown leads 65 to 21%.
Contrary to popular MSN opinion – Massachusetts in this instance is not “Safe Democrat” – The Bay State has a horserace on its hands. Due to the fact that in special elections in Massachusetts the Republican normally has the advantage, plus the high percentage of unenrolled voters turning to Brown (the majority of the electorate in MA) and the money is on Scott Brown to win.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree, it looks like a race to me. I would think in a state like Massachusetts a Dem can't feel good with numbers like that.
Hi Chuck, and when you look at the marginals - (which I have) there's more to it - for example, he's leading on the independent vote 3 to 1 (which is huge as that's over 50% of the electorate) plus, when you look at those who will vote, versus those who have said they would not - he's behind Martha by 2 points - with a 4.5 margin of error? He can win this.
Tina
Another Male posting ^-^
Hmm Well that aside, I must say im not overly surprised - I do think she has the greater chance to win, but I knew the polling was much closer then popular group think put it. (But can you blame it/them? Kerry and Kennedy did not have a real challenge in... ages or anyone really in the house for that matter)
I admit openly I plan to vote for the \"Some other candidate\" I must confess I wish to see what the polling would have been if they actually put his NAME on the poll as he is the only other person on the ballot- But alas they did not. But I suppose a trash can in the senate chair would be better than Coakley.. But I must confess I really dont have much faith in either candidate to be fiscally responsible. Or to protect my civil liberties (or the abstract prospect of heaven forbid having some privacy haha)
Hi Michael (or another male posting:)) - I happen to agree that they should have included Kennedy's name on the ballot - and I believe that his inclusion in the debates is of import - Understanding that the Libertarian Party, and other so-called "minor" parties are just now starting to gain traction - it is the deadlock of the two party system that has had a virtual stranglehold on the nation for better than a century (or two) - As to Brown being fiscally responsible, the data is there - to prove that he is - it online, in votes he has taken over the years - it is that the Mass. Legislatures website is not exactly easy to navigate - although, to be honest with you, fiscal responsibility aside, Kennedy's views vis a vis personal liberty are more closely aligned with Coakley's. In the debates, he goes after Brown, giving the appearance that he is more in "favor" of what Coakley has to offer - although I doubt, very much, that many people (other than political junkies) have watched the debates to date, those Democrats that have and cannot vote for Coakley, would find Kennedy a natural second choice. This is the main reason that leaving his name off the poll has most likely given Coakley extra points. Also, as I am sure you are aware, I am strongly supporting Brown, because his views, for the most part, most closely align with mine (see protection of women and children) Additionally, he doesn’t appear to be a candidate (again by record) who will not weigh a good idea from another party, and vote on it, should it benefit all the people. Just a thought there.
Post a Comment